February 12, 2010

Suburban sprawl, meet suburban tall; new high-rises offer chance for compact, walkable communities, but suburbs can't decide whether they want to be like the big city or distinct from it

Skyscraper! The word conjures up soaring towers of steel-and-glass--along with congested streets and blotted-out patches of sky. For years, Chicago has been defined by its skyscrapers, its suburbs by their single-family houses. Yet this age-old dichotomy has little to do with the way we live and work today.

In an arc extending from Evanston (left) to Schaumburg to Oak Brook, a new crop of tall buildings has invaded the placid, wide-open spaces of Chicago’s suburbs. And now, despite the recession, another skyscraper may be coming to some very sacred suburban turf: right down the street from a cluster of Frank Lloyd Wright-designed homes in Oak Park, including the architect’s very own Home and Studio.

It is amusing to picture a nattily dressed Wright walking out the front door of the shingle-clad Home and Studio (left) and looking down Forest Avenue at the planned, glass-sheathed skyscraper, which at 20 stories would be Oak Park’s tallest building. Presumably, he would have detested it. Wright, who died in 1959 loved to wickedly refer to the clean-lined shapes of modern design as “flat-chested architecture.”

But divining the old master’s reaction to the proposed, $85 million hotel and condominium skyscraper matters less than the broader trend the proposal reveals: This is the age of “suburban tall,” a counterweight to the much-criticized phenomenon of suburban sprawl. Yet many of Chicago’s suburbs seem ill-equipped to deal with the trend, sending confusing signals about whether they want to be like the big city or distinct from it.

“There’s no clarity,” said John LaMotte, principal of The Lakota Group, a Chicago-based planning and design firm. “It’s a fire fight on every single project, and it really shouldn’t be.”

A generation ago, there was little reason for fine-grained regulation. In those days, suburban skyscrapers tended to be office buildings along highways. They reflected a pattern of “leap-frog development,” in which growth jumped over inner-ring suburbs like Evanston and Oak Park in favor of suburban boomtowns like Schaumburg. A case in point: The Helmut Jahn-designed, octagon-shaped Oakbrook Terrace Tower of 1986 (left)—still the tallest building in the suburbs at 31 stories.

But the new suburban skyscrapers, as exemplified by the clusters of towers that have popped up in Arlington Heights and Evanston, are typically built in the heart of historic, transit-oriented downtowns. They are examples of what planners call “infill development,” filling the gaps in existing suburbs rather than shaping new ones. Yet their emergence has turned out to be anything but peaceful.

These towers, which tend to be residential, have created a built-in clientele that boosts the fortunes of restaurants, shops and movie theaters. That allows aging downtowns to compete against suburban mega-malls. Yet the scale of the new towers—a dramatic departure from comfy, old Main Streets and residential neighborhoods around them—has raised questions of urban compatibility (below) that their highway-oriented predecessors did not face.

In 2007, for example, a task force appointed to update Arlington Heights’ 1987 downtown master plan recommended reducing height limits in the suburb’s pedestrian-scaled downtown core and areas on the downtown’s flanks. But in 2008 the village board tabled the recommendations after local developers and property owners objected, according to Charles Witherington-Perkins, the suburb’s planning chief. The board felt it still had the appropriate tools “to moderate the height of any new proposed development,” he said.

Such tensions came to a boil in Evanston in 2008 after developers Tim Anderson and James Klutznick unveiled plans to construct a 49-story, 523-foot condominium tower which would have supplanted the Oakbrook Terrace Tower as the talllest building in the suburbs and would have been nearly twice as tall as Evanston’s tallest building.

Chicago architect Laurence Booth argued that his design for a tall, thin, glass-sheathed tower would give Evanston the best of both worlds—energy-saving density without overwhelming bulk. Yet protesters argued that the design would produce an over-scaled monstrosity that would join with neighboring skyscrapers to create a bland high-rise thicket that would raise rents and uproot local merchants. “No Skyscrapers,” their buttons said, even though the downtown was already dotted with them.

The outcome was a compromise with disappointments for both sides. Evanston last year approved a downtown height limit of 35 stories, which will hardly allow the soaring tower Booth envisioned, and gave the project’s developers a three-year extension (until 2013) to break ground, disappointing opponents who are still fighting the project.

The fundamental problem, many observers agree, is that the skyscraper proposal emerged before Evanston had completed a new master plan that articulated its vision for downtown—and how the scale, massing and other features of new buildings should reflect that.

“They were zoning per [individual] site,” said LaMotte, who helped develop the plan. “They weren’t really looking at the big picture.”

A comparable lack of clarity surrounds the controversial Oak Park proposal (left), which is known as the Lake & Forest Development in recognition of the streets that flank it. Oak Park’s Village Board is expected to take up the proposal next month.

Backed by a Chicago-based developer, Sertus Capital Partners, the plan calls for the construction of a 140-room hotel, 85 condos, about 28,000 square feet of retail space and a 510-space parking garage on the site of an aging, village-owned parking garage and a vacant, one-story commercial building that once housed a popular pancake house (below). In addition, Oak Park would pay the developer $9.8 million for 300 publicly owned spaces in the garage and give the hotel a $500,000 operating subsidy for its first two years of operation.

These obligations, which the deal’s supporters say would be balanced by an estimated increase in real estate, sales and hotel tax revenues totaling at least $1 million annually, have naturally raised concerns about whether the deal makes financial sense. But the urban design issues are no less nettlesome, given the high quality of nearby buildings.

To the north, along tree-lined Forest Avenue, is a spectacular row of Wright-designed homes that draw an estimated 80,000 tourists a year. To the east and west stretches the human-scaled Lake Street shopping and residential district, with its alluring mix of Art Deco, Dutch Revival and neo-classical buildings, along with Wright’s Unity Temple, a powerful essay in exposed concrete. To the south across Lake is a clunky, brick-faced residential tower, about 165 feet tall.

Does another tall building make sense in such a context? Oak Park’s 1990 comprehensive plan states that the suburb “does not wish to develop large concentrations of high-density buildings in any one part of the village,” although it opens the door for a possible exception on Lake Street. The suburb’s greater downtown master plan, adopted in 2005, goes a step further, saying that retaining the village’s historic, small-town feel should be one of Oak Park’s guiding development principles. In response, the height limit for the proposed skyscraper site was reduced to 80 feet from 125 feet.

Case closed? Not quite. The design, by the Chicago architectural firm Epstein, does a better-than-average job of diminishing the impact of its big building program while introducing new uses that could jump-start a downtown that many describe as an economic laggard. “Is it Santiago Calatrava? No,” acknowledged Sertus principal Michael Glazier, referring to the renowned architect who designed the stalled Chicago Spire super tower. “Santiago Calatrava isn’t affordable in Oak Park.”

Instead of a single, chunky block, Epstein calls for thin offset slabs with overriding planes of glass, which would de-emphasize the tower’s bulk. In addition, the architects have deftly hidden the project’s parking garage behind a two-story retail base with a lively folded glass facade. And they have wisely placed the tower’s highest point at the corner while stepping the skyscraper downward to the residential districts to the north and east (left). This skyscraper promises to be a good neighbor, not the bully down the block.

Still, it is hard not to have mixed feelings about this plan. If the project succeeds, which is by no means a certainty given that Sertus has yet to obtain financing, other developers will likely come along with high-rise proposals of their own. And the same cycle of conflicting principles and bitter debate will start all over again.

What’s needed instead, said LaMotte, is comprehensive urban planning that lays out complementary design directions for developers and architects without being overly prescriptive. “Developers and builders are looking for a clear direction from communities rather than fighting for three years and nothing gets done,” he said.

Clarity is everything as towns confront the new realities of “suburban tall.” But clarity can only be achieved if suburbs take a hard look at themselves and ask: Who are we and how should our buildings reflect that? The recession-induced pause in development may the best time of all to do that—before the next wave of towers hits.

Posted at 06:23:45 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Placid suburbs? Not likely here.

Today's suburb is a car-jammed patchwork of places to gas up and coffee up, totally devoid of culture. Evanston may be the exception to the rule as it ajoins the city and has its own university and arts vibe. Oak Brook's would fit better in emotionless, sprawling inland Orange County, Calif. while Arlington Heights is on big Extreme Makeover edition about 10 years overdue.

As for these glass towers in ring suburbs, Schaumburg is the best of the worst. Which in these parts means an 'Office Space' look and feel. But at least that mega-plex wannbe's ennui is tempered by the Woodfield Hooters with uneasy access to an ever torn up and bottlenecked Interstate 290.

frankly i like the evanston towers. the buildings they have replaced mostly have been old worn out pieces of dreck. but then the UBER LIBERAL UNIVERISTY CHATTING CLASS doesn't like living next to real people.

take pride in the natural land where you live and actually, actively interact with your surroundings. value is more than numbers in a contract or in a bank account.

"developers and builders" seem like such bland and irrelevant people, like insurance salespeople or financial planners. so base and shortsighted. so disengaged, yet instrumental in the world. the entire system of value needs to change, but it won't. this is not a city or suburban trend. this is an old school 1970's HUMAN trend. and it's not good.

because obviously the only way to progress/make more money is to "develop" more and more and more "buildings". create more and more and more organizations of governance with more and more and more people holding offices of governance over some little plot of overly developed/robotized land.

a new building with "funky" architecture is not visionary. its still just another building, like all the rest. true vision is beyond that. putting a couple of trees here and there is not visionary. it's not developing, it's destroying. but they make money, so it will continue. because the dollar is our new mother.

i'm tiring very quickly of the american and seemingly worldwide human trend of "buildings". what an evil word. i will search for a "cool" place that just get's it, to be. a place much different than here. a place where an explanation isn't needed.

"on the site of an aging, village-owned parking garage and a vacant, one-story commercial building that once housed a popular pancake house (below). "

It should be noted that the building is vacant ONLY because the developer kicked out several thriving businesses, including the aforementioned pancake house and a neighborhood grocer.

That's one of the more egregious tactics by developers -- they buy up a property, kick out all the tenants, and then allow the property to sit empty for years until the community finally begs them to build whatever hideous monstrosity they wish.

Interesting that the name of Frank Lloyd Wright's name was brought up in the article.
Frank Lloyd Wright designed houses that look like bus stations. Any first year architectural student or intern can do better.
When looking at Wright's designs, you have to wonder if he had an even more warped sense of humor than he was given credit for.

The quote by larry Booth is spot on about how tall and slender is better, it interferes less with the existing streetscape and light. Oak Park is a natural candidate for high density development and it should welcome attempts, however, the short, plug ugly squat building in the picture is actually the worst of all ideas. Dense but sprawling block wide footprint, giant wall facing the street with some souless glassy wall on the street, no soaring focal point just a flat buzzed off top and a confusing mix of materials. Its okay to say its plain old bad design. FLW would surely welcome a high rise, even in Oak Park, as long as it was good.

I live in an older version of the "suburban tall" apartment. The pros? Shopping, fitness center, and community rooms inside my building. Good view. The cons? Uncharacteristically terrible garage parking for the suburbs, and long elevator waits. Altogether, I'm glad I live where I do, but eventually I think the parking is going to drive me into a more traditional apartment building in the suburbs. It should not be a 10 minute elevator ride and walk through a garage to get to one's car in the 'burbs. As for where they belong? I think that that depends entirely on the suburb and the surroundings. I can see another skyscraper among the several in Schaumburg. It would just look like another office building. Put that in more classic downtown Downers Grove, and you have a problem. And pressuring people out of their homes or businesses for development is ALWAYS shady.

I have to agree with you, but they also have some charm. From the point of view of an average person like myself with no architectural background, his houses are a refreshing break from the blocks upon blocks of bungalows and other types of cookie-cutter houses in Chicago.

I get caught up in this mindset sometimes with music (my hobby). Do I write songs to impress other musicians with technical ability, or write music that appeals to people who just listen to music on the radio? It is incredibly hard to do both at the same time. Either way I'm terrible, but thats besides the point. Sometimes I start picking apart songs, wondering how a 3 chord song could be so popular. I'm sure in architecture, like music or anything else, its easy to overlook the reasons people are attracted to things.

T. WILLIAMS , People like you prefer a fake or veneer to almost anything I'm guessing. Wright was more into the abstract, stripping away all clatter and getting to the heart of architecture. Wright was way ahead of his contemporaries, even ahead of most of today's building "designers". His designs incorporated living. His homes worshipped the owners environment, both inside and brought the outside in. His homes were solar and green before the ideas emerged. His roof's often leaked is true, but people lived a more satisfying life under his roof's designs!

We in Oak Park are told that the economies of scale require such a dense, overbuilt project on this site -- that without the prospects of large-scale returns, there simply is not enough incentive for developers to bother with our village. So in consequence we we end up with a project promising 180 hotels rooms, not to mention 85 condos -- figures that dwarf any demonstrable demand. Anyone been to Trump Towers lately? The hotel industry in the Chicago area is deeply underwater as are condo markets (including that within Oak Park itself).

From where many of us in OP sit, there is absolutely no economic rationale for this project, meaning it will never come to fruition or will instead prove an enormous if skyline-domineering bust and financial albatross. And who pays the price when that comes to pass?

As a professional planner -- and principle author of Oak Park's award-winning Comprehensive Plan 1979 upon which the 1990 plan was based -- I've seen Oak Park's leadership fumble the ball again and again when it comes to downtown Oak Park. The village is so painfully difficult to work with that businesses and developers stay away unless they can extort a massive subsidy out of the village like Sertus Capital Partners and Whiteco did.

Village leaders just don't seem to understand that Oak Park's downtown will not flourish without a lot more high density affordable housing there to provide a captive market for the merchants in downtown Oak Park.

Evanston did the right thing by allowing extensive development in its downtown. Despite the architecture of nearly every downtown Evanston high rise being downright ugly, buildings poorly planned with some squeezed into spaces in they don't belong, and no effort to include badly-needed affordable housing, the high density housing has made downtown Evanston a veritable mecca for business compared to provincial downtown Oak Park.

Oak Park needs to permit and encourage high density housing within its downtown -- not on the outskirts like the heavily subsidized Sertus project. And it needs to require that 20 percent of the dwelling units in any new development be affordable to households with modest incomes (such as teachers, librarians, retired seniors, village employees including police and fire personnel, social workers, city planners, workers for nonprofits, and our children just entering the workforce) -- a policy that fully complies with the 1990 and 1979 comprehensive plans.

But none of this will happen because Oak Park's leaders have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to think things out or understand sound planning principles, and a willingness be extorted by developers who can provide no proof that they can't make a go of it without a taxpayer subsidy. Oak Park's leaders continue to have an inferiority complex about the fantastic suburb they govern. They butcher any project with which the village becomes involved.

There certainly is no shortage of expensive condominiums in Oak Park while there continues to be a serious shortage of housing affordable to the sort of people who made Oak Park the great place to live that it is today. But village leaders are content to continue to force those folks out of Oak Park (so many residents and businesses have moved to Forest Park that many refer to Forest Park as "Oak Park West"). And they're content to force out viable businesses like the restaurant Las Cosadores for a development deal that fell through last year.

It's a sad situation of a great suburb being kept from all it can be by a leadership that is so insecure that it grabs onto nearly every development proposal that comes along no matter how ill-conceived it is.

Thanks for such a thoughtful take on an ongoing issue that's not going away anytime soon.

Advocates of greener, more environmentally friendly lifestyles have generally championed transit oriented development, infill redevelopment and higher density living. Suburban communities like Oak Park (where I lived for over 20 years) are generally ill prepared to accommodate this kind of development. Their plans and entitlement processes are dated, obtuse and cumbersome. The economic return on investment to the community promoted by leadership is poorly and often over-stated. Controversy leads to factious gamesmanship.

A major problem is that community leaders have not taken the time to build a true consensus around a shared future vision, and that's where the troubles starts and never go away. As a result, each new project becomes a referendum on a whole lot of issues tangental to the project actually under review. This has certainly been the case in Oak Park, and I've seen it in many other communities where I've worked as a planning consultant.

Higher density development can yield a number of benefits, especially in a place like Oak Park that has limited space for tax generating development. However, it takes considerable effort to make the case for its value, define the benchmarks, educate stakeholders, negotiate a consensus and find a developer who will actually create a compelling design that captures the public's imagination. Thus brain damage suffered by all parties during the approval process is usually self induced. But then, righteous indignation is a powerful and addicting drug that both advocates of new development and their adversaries often find irresistible.

I found the comment that Oak Park already has 350 condos on the market amusing. Before the market completely collapsed, Evanston already had over 600 units on the market in 2006. Never mind the fact that no fire department in the area is equipped to fight fires over 20 stories in Evanston, never mind current credit crunch or the fact that so many of Evanston's condo buildings are vacant or overwhelmingly rented out (and their reserves are dangerously low), how does a developer get financing when so many units are already not selling?

@ Dan_iel: Thank you for the insight into the decades-old dysfunction at Oak Park.

From your post: “Village leaders just don't seem to understand that Oak Park’s downtown will not flourish without a lot more high density affordable housing there to provide a captive market for the merchants in downtown Oak Park.”

Your paragraph is very true, however, can they still define themselves as a suburb if they allow such growth? I think that’s the main theme of Blair's column: If they allow such higher density, does the suburb cease to exist? Would it still be considered suburb?

The point you make in your paragraph would work if it was a town completely detached from a major city, but when I see a map of Chicago or an aerial shot of Oak Park, it is indistinct from the rest of the city grid. It is a suburb in name only because people who live there desperately want to cling to the notion they still live in a different town so they can jack up home prices and tax revenue.

When Oak Park and Forest Park were established, they were outside of city limits. Evanston too, but eventually the city grew right to their doorstep, and even around them. I live in Ravenswood (now in the city), and it used to be a suburb as late as the 1910s.

I’ve only lived in Chicago a year, and I’ve not been to Oak Park yet. So my question is, “Why do they want to increase density?” I’m sorry, but a street lined with FLW-designed houses is not enough of an incentive for a hotel located far away from both airports and not even close to the expressways that link them. They must be losing people to the city of Chicago, and now they feel they must compete with it.

Evanston has extorted developers for years with an affordable housing requirement for new projects. Right now, there are five affordable housing projects that went bust and the city had to bail them out.

Evanston just got an $18 million stimulus grant to buy, build and rehab properties and sell/rent them ONLY to low income buyers/renters. Brinshore Development was handpicked by Evanston to do this project.

Instead of building smack dab in the middle of downtown, which has terrible traffic problems, they should continue to buy up land along the train tracks and build condos, as they have been doing. Oh, and build more parking lots. There is no parking there. Residents can't park on the streets overnight and there is not enough zoned parking spaces to handle residents.

Many people who live and work in Evanston oppose the Evanston Tower Project for reasons of quality of living. To these qualitative issues, developers argue increased revenue for businesses and for the city, yet who of the displaced professionals (who will lose their office space) intend to return if the proposed Tower is constructed?
I think that we all need to assess our needs and desires in terms of quality and quantity and then to communicate them to elected officials if suburban populations want to continue to feel at home where they live and have a voice in their communty's evolution.

Dr J - Have you ever heard of "fire sprinklers"? No high-rise nowdays is built without them (even if not specifically required by code). You can sleep at night now knowing the fire department wont have to worry as much if a new high-rise were to catch fire.

The suburbs should be looking at more comprehensive zoning changes to better guide developers who do want to build something in their city. There isn't anything wrong with building higher-density, especially if near a rail line. Height set-backs & other limits can be incorporated to make sure new construction blends well with existing.

I actually like downtown Evanston & even Arlington Heights with their high-rise cores, they have more life in them than other suburbs where you never get out of your car and just drive right through enroute to your destination.

Arlington Heights is poorly managed and corrupt. The village board approves anything for a property developer. The downtown area is a mess and vacancies have been high for a long time. There will be another large building going up, which is a big mistake.

This is just a bad idea all around. It's not like the issue is going to be taken up for discussion by the board for the first time next month, they have been engaged during the planning and development process all along. What takes place next month is the final approval.

The end result of the Arlington Heights build up is a parking disaster for residents, Metra commuters and downtown patrons. The village planners did not plan well at all for the parking needs of these developments.

It always amazes me that a) suburbanites and their municipalities will drone on endlessly about their high property taxes yet are perfectly content to watch subways and commuter trains roll past stations surrounded by parking lots and houses on 1/4 acre lots and b) that regional governments let small towns hold the transit network hostage like that.

Collectively you spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year on the CTA and Metra. Why wouldn't you allow density within a 1/2 mile (or even 1/4 mile) of the stations?

danny, the closest (as well as upscale) hotels to Oak Park are located in Oak Park: the Write Inn and the Carleton. OP doesn't really need any more hotel units. My guess us that right as construction begins, the developer will "suddenly" realize this, and build the units as condos instead.

Thanks, Blair! You've really conjured up the essence of the Oak Park controversy. Sadly, it appears that the Village Board has an agenda that is in direct conflict with how the community has outlined its desire to guide future growth, as spelled out in its Zoning Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, and Greater Downtown Master Plan documents that are supposed to be used as development guidance. The people have spoken with their direction of the Greater Downtown Master Plan, and support of the Comprehensive Plan through the Zoning Ordinance. I have lost faith in government when I see how quickly the governing Zoning Ordinances as statutes (laws) can be cast aside at a whim through purposeful inclusion of the "we can do whatever we want" PUD exception language.

Quick note before another stream-of-consciousnous monologue - everyone seems to insist on calling this PUD a tower. That's the way it appears on the north and south elevations, but have you seen the proposed design from the east and west elevations (those which most of the Downtown and The Avenue visitors will see)? Not much of a tower to me from these elevations; looks more like 20 stories of glass and concrete walls.

I don't think supporters realize what this is about. It is truly about protecting and maintaining the documents that indicate how the community has determined it wants to grow - by keeping with the small-town feel, maintaining low-rise development, doing so wisely, and by using its limited funds prudently. Multi-use is great! The community gets all tingly thinking about revenue-generating retail space! But this area also needs more publicly-available parking, not less! The currently-available 349+ public parking spaces will be dimished to 300 spaces, because that is all that can be economically feasible within the proposed design... as if that is the only design, and that is how it should be accepted! If the Board really does desire growth, it is being completely irresponsible with taxpayer dollars if it believes that removing public parking spaces for purpose of squeezing in a pet-project hotel is better than increasing public parking spaces.

The community is all for redevelopment, but it needs to be done responsibly, adhering to the spirit of the guidelines that the community has worked so hard to develop and protect... and honestly - wouldn't you think that if it is not economically feasible for a development - or a portion of a development - to be built without taxpayer subsidy, then it should not be developed? Oak Park has already tried subsidizing a major residential development (reference Whiteco project at the SE corner of Harlem and Ontario), and it appears to have failed; only 50% occupancy (-ish... maybe...), mostly because these apartments are too expensive (so much for Oak Park's vision of supplying more affordable-housing!). The only positive that came from that development is that we now have a thriving - even if somewhat small - Trader Joe's.

I know that the Board believes in their hearts that this is the right thing for the community, but it is not - not with this design towering over charming Downtown Oak Park, and with imprudent use of tax revenues.

Thank you for the opportunity to rant, as senseless acts require no less...

If only the Trustees would listen to the people. People don't want this in Oak Park. A 20 story building is not in keeping with the character of this wonderful Village which its citizens love. We, the people, love our town for its charm, its walkability, its livability, its age. We like the history of our buildings, the town-ey feel. We don't want another evanston, or a tower like the one in Itasca on 290. We don't want massive new buildings for any reason. It seems that over and over, the powers that be work up a deal behind the scenes and become so invested in the idea of it that they lose sight of what they are doing to the town, and lose sight of what most people in this town want. Once this monstrosity is built, we are stuck with it looming over our most precious neighborhood.

We lived through Whiteco, but haven't learned a thing. The citizens were deeply opposed and they were right. Its big. Its especially ugly and its empty. No one's tax bill went down because of Whiteco. Lake Street did not come alive because of Whiteco. The promises of the developers just don't materialize.

The Village Board would do well to listen to the people who elected them. Stop feeling like you know better than your constituents. Yes, you can argue back about the specifics relating to financing, the timing of constructing a hotel when the industry is failing, etc. But there is no argument a Trustee can make against listening to the will of the people who elected you in this democracy. Too often elected officials in Oak Park dismiss opponents as crazy or take a position of superiority that is more regal than democratic. The people are opposed to this giant building in their town and it is the duty of the trustees to pay attention to that.

"The Village Board would do well to listen to the people who elected them." Well, that sounds really nice in theory, but the current Oak Park Village Board was elected with the lowest voter turnout in something like 3 decades -- significantly less than 10% of eligible voters actually voted for any of the winning candidates. Under those circumstances, the Board will do what they want -- and signing off on a big development deal is a huge ego boost, particularly when it's not your money you're committing. (And who knows what sort of untraceable kickbacks may be floating around -- I'm sure there are no suitcases full of cash being passed back and forth, but there are much more subtle ways to reward a politician, particularly if they just gave you several million dollars in public funds.)

And yes, there WAS an alternative party in the last election which DID specifically oppose this project and DID propose to do smart development to focus on Oak Park's strengths instead of huge subsidized nonsense. They got almost exactly 1/3 of the voter turnout. The lesson the VMA (the pro-subsidized-development political establishment in Oak Park, who now hold all 7 votes on the Village Board) has learned is that if you stick your fingers in your ears and hum long enough, swing voters will stop voting and your unthinking base who haven't noticed that you aren't still the same as you were in the 1970s will keep you in power. (Not unlike the Democrats, actually.) Thanks to the failure of Oak Park voters to act in their own interests, the VMA will have a majority on the Village Board until at least 2013.

I'd love to be wrong, but all the evidence suggests that in a decade's time, Oak Park will be in a severe decline, from which it may never recover in our lifetimes. It will be crippled by severe debt, sued from all directions for very good reasons, lacking services other, more prudent towns will still be able to afford, and saddled with a downtown full of shoddy, expensive, and (worst of all) unoccupied recent construction, and the rest of the town full of stagnation and decay thanks to the VMA's obsession with the TIF districts. I may be wrong, in fact I hope I'm wrong, but if I owned property in Oak Park (which, thankfully, I don't) I'd sell now before people started to catch on.